Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Mohamedtaki Abdulaziz Tejani
Based on 5 articles published since 2009
(Why 5 articles?)

Between 2009 and 2019, M. Tejani wrote the following 5 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Clinical Trial Effect of Selumetinib and MK-2206 vs Oxaliplatin and Fluorouracil in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer After Prior Therapy: SWOG S1115 Study Randomized Clinical Trial. 2017

Chung, Vincent / McDonough, Shannon / Philip, Philip A / Cardin, Dana / Wang-Gillam, Andrea / Hui, Laifong / Tejani, Mohamedtaki A / Seery, Tara E / Dy, Irene A / Al Baghdadi, Tareq / Hendifar, Andrew E / Doyle, L Austin / Lowy, Andrew M / Guthrie, Katherine A / Blanke, Charles D / Hochster, Howard S. ·City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California. · SWOG Statistical Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. · Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. · Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. · Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri. · Kaiser Permanente NCORP, Sacramento, California. · University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. · University of California, Irvine, Orange. · Crossroads Cancer Center/Heartland NCORP, Effingham, Illinois. · St Joseph Mercy Hospital/Michigan CRC NCORP, Ann Arbor. · Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. · Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. · University of California, San Diego, La Jolla. · SWOG Group Chair's Office/Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. · Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut. ·JAMA Oncol · Pubmed #27978579.

ABSTRACT: Importance: KRAS mutations are common in pancreatic cancer, but directly targeting the KRAS protein has thus far been unsuccessful. The aim of this trial was to block the MEK and PI3K/AKT pathways downstream of the KRAS protein as an alternate treatment strategy to slow cancer growth and prolong survival. This was the first cooperative group trial to evaluate this strategy using molecularly targeted oral combination therapy for the treatment of chemotherapy-refractory pancreatic cancer. Objective: To compare selumetinib and MK-2206 vs modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer for whom gemcitabine-based therapy had failed. Design, Setting, and Participants: SWOG S1115 was a randomized phase 2 clinical trial. Between September 2012 and May 2014, 137 patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma for whom gemcitabine-based chemotherapy had failed were randomized to selumetinib plus MK-2206 or mFOLFOX. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion and stratified according to duration of prior systemic therapy and presence of liver metastases. Interventions: Patients received selumetinib 100 mg orally per day plus MK-2206 135 mg orally once per week or mFOLFOX (oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m2 intravenous, and fluorouracil, 2400 mg/m2 intravenous infusion over 46-48 hours) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point of the study was overall survival. Secondary objectives included evaluating toxic effects, objective tumor response, and progression-free survival. Results: There were 58 patients in the selumetinib plus MK-2206 (experimental) arm (60% male; median [range] age, 69 [54-88] years) and 62 patients in the mFOLFOX arm (35% male; median [range] age, 65 [34-82] years). In the experimental arm, median overall survival was shorter (3.9 vs 6.7 months; HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.90-2.08; P = .15), as was median progression-free survival (1.9 vs 2.0 months; HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.07-2.43; P = .02). One vs 5 patients had a partial response and 12 vs 14 patients had stable disease in the experimental arm vs mFOLFOX arm. Grade 3 or higher toxic effects were observed in 39 patients treated with selumetinib and MK-2206 vs 23 patients treated with mFOLFOX. More patients in the experimental arm discontinued therapy due to adverse events (13 vs 7 patients). Conclusions and Relevance: Dual targeting of the MEK and PI3K/AKT pathways downstream of KRAS by selumetinib plus MK-2206 did not improve overall survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma for whom gemcitabine-based chemotherapy had failed. This was the first randomized prospective evaluation of mFOLFOX in the US population that showed comparable results to CONKO-003 and PANCREOX. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01658943.

2 Clinical Trial A phase II/III randomized study to compare the efficacy and safety of rigosertib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. 2015

O'Neil, B H / Scott, A J / Ma, W W / Cohen, S J / Leichman, L / Aisner, D L / Menter, A R / Tejani, M A / Cho, J K / Granfortuna, J / Coveler, A L / Olowokure, O O / Baranda, J C / Cusnir, M / Phillip, P / Boles, J / Nazemzadeh, R / Rarick, M / Cohen, D J / Radford, J / Fehrenbacher, L / Bajaj, R / Bathini, V / Fanta, P / Berlin, J / McRee, A J / Maguire, R / Wilhelm, F / Maniar, M / Jimeno, A / Gomes, C L / Messersmith, W A. ·Simon Cancer Center, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. · University of Colorado, Denver, Aurora. · Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo. · Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia. · Kaiser Permanente, Lone Tree. · University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester. · Oncare Hawaii, Honolulu. · Cone Health Cancer Center, Greensboro. · University of Washington, Seattle. · University of Cincinnati Cancer Institute, Cincinnati. · University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood. · Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach. · Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit. · Rex Cancer Center UNC Healthcare, Raleigh. · Carolinas Health Care, Charlotte. · Kaiser Permanante Northwest, Portland. · NYU Clinical Cancer Center, New York. · Hendersonville Hematology and Oncology at Pardee, Hendersonville. · Kaiser Permanante Medical Center, Vallejo. · McLeod Regional Medical Center, Florence. · University of Massachusetts Memorial, Worcester. · UCSD Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla. · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville. · UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill. · Onconova Therapeutics Inc., Newtown. · Oncology Consortia of Criterium Inc., Saratoga Springs, USA. · University of Colorado, Denver, Aurora wells.messersmith@ucdenver.edu. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #26091808.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Rigosertib (ON 01910.Na), a first-in-class Ras mimetic and small-molecule inhibitor of multiple signaling pathways including polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), has shown efficacy in preclinical pancreatic cancer models. In this study, rigosertib was assessed in combination with gemcitabine in patients with treatment-naïve metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle plus rigosertib 1800 mg/m(2) via 2-h continuous IV infusions given twice weekly for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle (RIG + GEM) versus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 weeks in a 4-week cycle (GEM). RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were enrolled globally and randomly assigned to RIG + GEM (106 patients) or GEM (54). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (8% in the RIG + GEM group versus 6% in the GEM group), hyponatremia (17% versus 4%), and anemia (8% versus 4%). The median overall survival was 6.1 months for RIG + GEM versus 6.4 months for GEM [hazard ratio (HR), 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.81]. The median progression-free survival was 3.4 months for both groups (HR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.68-1.36). The partial response rate was 19% versus 13% for RIG + GEM versus GEM, respectively. Of 64 tumor samples sent for molecular analysis, 47 were adequate for multiplex genetic testing and 41 were positive for mutations. The majority of cases had KRAS gene mutations (40 cases). Other mutations detected included TP53 (13 cases) and PIK3CA (1 case). No correlation between mutational status and efficacy was detected. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of RIG + GEM failed to demonstrate an improvement in survival or response compared with GEM in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Rigosertib showed a similar safety profile to that seen in previous trials using the IV formulation.

3 Article Patterns of interactions among patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, their caregivers, and healthcare providers during symptom discussions. 2018

Tang, Chia-Chun / Draucker, Claire / Tejani, Mohamedtaki A / Von Ah, Diane. ·National Taiwan University School of Nursing, No1, Sec 1, Jen-Ai Rd, Taipei, Taiwan, 10051. cckimi72@gmail.com. · Angela Barron McBride Endowed Professorship in Mental Health Nursing, Indiana University School of Nursing, 600 Barnhill Drive, NU409W, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. · University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. · Department of Community & Health Systems, Indiana University School of Nursing, 600 Barnhill Drive, NU 407, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. ·Support Care Cancer · Pubmed #29696423.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Effective symptom discussion is an essential step to enhance symptom management in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). However, little is known about how these patients communicate their symptoms during health encounters. The purpose of this study was to develop a typology to describe patterns of interactions between patients with APC, their caregivers, and healthcare providers as regards to symptoms and symptom management. METHODS: Thematic analysis was used to analyze 37 transcripts of audio-recorded, naturally occurring encounters among APC patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. Transcripts were drawn from the Values and Options in Cancer Care study, a larger randomized controlled communication and decision-making intervention trial, which recruited advanced cancer patients and caregivers across the USA. All transcripts from APC patients that were pre-intervention were analyzed. RESULTS: Eight unique types of interaction patterns among patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers were identified as follows: collaborative interactions, explanatory interactions, agentic interactions, checklist interactions, cross-purpose interactions, empathic interactions, admonishing interactions, and diverging interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide a systematic description of a variety of types of interaction patterns regarding symptom discussion among APC patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. These typologies can be used to facilitate effective communication and symptom management.

4 Article Symptom experiences in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer as reported during healthcare encounters. 2018

Tang, C-C / Draucker, C / Tejani, M / Von Ah, D. ·National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. · Angela Barron McBride Endowed Professorship in Mental Health Nursing, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, IN, USA. · University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA. · Department of Community & Health Systems, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, IN, USA. ·Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) · Pubmed #29600524.

ABSTRACT: Symptom management is one of the primary goals of care for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) patients. The purpose of this study was to examine recorded healthcare encounters to better understand the symptom experiences of APC patients as told to healthcare providers (HCP). In this qualitative descriptive study, content analysis was used to analyze 37 transcripts of audio-recorded, naturally occurring encounters among APC patients, caregivers, and HCP. Transcripts were drawn from a larger randomized controlled study, which recruited advanced cancer patients and caregivers across the United States. Findings revealed that APC patients and caregivers experienced multiple troubling symptoms. Thirty-seven APC patients and 34 caregivers discussed 10 types of symptoms: pain, fatigue, abnormal bowel movements, decreased appetite, nausea and vomiting, sleeping problems, neurological problems, skin problems, psychological distress, and taste changes. The patients and caregivers discussed various aspects of the symptoms, including the nature of the symptoms, how the symptoms affected their lives, and the way they managed symptoms. Some symptoms were described as severe, life-changing, and highly distressing. HCP should be attuned to the wide variety of ways in which APC patients experience, manage, and live with symptoms. A systematic approach to address symptoms during encounters may improve care and efficiency.

5 Unspecified Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: does chemotherapy work? 2014

Tejani, Mohamedtaki Abdulaziz / Saif, Muhammad Wasif. ·Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Rochester. Rochester, NY, USA. mohamed_tejani@urmc.rochester.edu. ·JOP · Pubmed #24618436.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are rare well-differentiated neoplasms which can be functional or non-functional. They tend to have a worse prognosis than their counterpart carcinoid tumors. Current systemic treatment options for advanced, unresectable disease include somatostatin analogs, everolimus and sunitinib. Low response rates and toxicity profiles have, thus far, limited the widespread use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in this setting. In this update, we review three abstracts from the 2014 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium that present outcomes of the use of combination capecitabine and temozolomide in patients with advanced pNET. We summarize their results and discuss the role of this regimen in treatment algorithms for metastatic pNET.